Exposure to the seminal plasma of different portions of the boar ejaculate modulates the survival of spermatozoa cryopreserved in MiniFlatPacks.
Spermatozoa present in the first collectable 10 mL of the sperm-rich fraction (SRF) of the boar ejaculate (portion 1, P1) have higher documented viability during and after cryopreservation than spermatozoa in the rest of the ejaculate (portion 2, P2), probably in relation to different features of the surrounding seminal plasma (SP). In the present study, we investigated whether the SP from these ejaculate portions (SP1 or SP2) was able to differently influence sperm viability and chromatin structure of the P1- or P2-contained spermatozoa from individual boars primarily or secondarily exposed (e.g., following cleansing and re-exposure) to pooled SP1 or SP2 from the same males during 60 min. Spermatozoa were subjected to controlled cooling and thawing in MiniFlatPacks (MFPs) and examined for motility (using computer-assisted sperm analysis, CASA) at selected stages of processing. Moreover, sperm plasma membrane intactness (investigated using SYBR-14/propidium iodide, PI), plasma membrane architecture (examined using Annexin-V-PI staining), and chromatin (deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA) integrity (tested using sperm chromatin structure assay, SCSA) were assessed post-thaw (PT). A higher proportion of P1 spermatozoa than of P2 spermatozoa incubated in their native SP portion were confirmed to be motile from collection to PT. When P1 spermatozoa were cleansed from their original SP and re-exposed to pooled P2-SP, sperm kinematics deteriorated from extension to PT. By contrast, cleansed P2 spermatozoa increased motility to P1 levels, especially PT when re-exposed to pooled P1-SP. Such differential effects on motility were not clearly accompanied by biologically related modifications of sperm membrane or chromatin structure. This influence of the SP on sperm kinematics was not sire-dependent and it was presumably related to different concentrations or either SP proteins or bicarbonate in the different ejaculate portions.
Saravia
F
F
Division of Reproduction, Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Ulls väg 14 C, Clinical Centre, Ultuna, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden. fernando.saravia@kv.slu.se
Wallgren
M
M
Johannisson
A
A
Calvete
J J
JJ
Sanz
L
L
Peña
F J
FJ
Roca
J
J
Rodríguez-Martínez
H
H
D000818:Animals; D015925:Cryopreservation / Q000379:methods / Q000662:veterinary*; D004249:DNA Damage; D005298:Fertility; D008297:Male; D012661:Semen / Q000502:physiology*; D012662:Semen Preservation / Q000379:methods / Q000662:veterinary*; D013081:Sperm Motility; D013094:Spermatozoa / Q000166:cytology / Q000502:physiology*; D013552:Swine